Please print letter, Smokestick
- Thread starter ASB
- Start date
SMOKESTICK
Active Member
- Messages
- 852
ASB,
I will gladly post the letter once it is finalized. I will need to see how I can post copies of the inserts as well. Since they will be included with the letter, I don't think another thread is needed. It will also be posted on our web site (www.wysfw.org) once it is completed as well.
I will gladly post the letter once it is finalized. I will need to see how I can post copies of the inserts as well. Since they will be included with the letter, I don't think another thread is needed. It will also be posted on our web site (www.wysfw.org) once it is completed as well.
SMOKESTICK
Active Member
- Messages
- 852
ASB,
Hope to have the letter, etc. posted Friday or Saturday.
Hope to have the letter, etc. posted Friday or Saturday.
SMOKESTICK
Active Member
- Messages
- 852
Sorry, I was a few days later than I had planned on but I wanted to ensure that I was not violating forum rules. I received permission from Brian to post the letter. There will also be two color inserts which accompany the letter as well; however, in order to not take too much room I decided not to post the inserts on here. They can be viewed by visiting our web site at www.wysfw.org. You will notice one is about our Commissioner's License raffle and the other is about the custom rifle we are giving away in a raffle for those that elect to join our organization.
Thanks again Brian for letting me post this on MonsterMuleys.
Thanks again Brian for letting me post this on MonsterMuleys.
PleaseDear
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 10,450
Thanks for posting the letter.....Bob.
Robb
Robb
Utah400Elk
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,267
Bob:
I have not had the opportunity to meet with you yet. Not your fault, you have been more than willing to meet but my work schedule has prevented us from meeting.
Please explain how Wyo SFW's is going to attempt to tackle access to private lands. This looks like a landowner tag proposal to me. Am I wrong in assuming this? Will you, as the president of Wyo SFW, publicly state that Wyo SFW opposes all landowner tags in the state of Wyoming? What is the win/win solution that you are proposing?
Why is Wyo SFW separating resident and nonresident hunters? Do you think a land owner should be able to sell nonresident hunters landowner tags to hunt their private property as long as resident hunters get access to the land?
What is Wyo SFW's stance on the corner jumping? This, to me, is an instance where private landowners are preventing resident and nonresident hunters from accessing public lands? Does Wyo SFW oppose or support corner jumping laws?
What is Wyo SFW's stance on the wilderness laws as it relates to nonresident big game hunters? Does Wyo SFW support or oppose the Wilderness guide law for nonresident big game hunters?
I am not attacking you but asking you, as the head of Wyo SFW, to define Wyo SFW's position on several hunting related issues. You have asked for Wyoming resident hunter support so as a Wyoming resident hunter I want to know where Wyo SFW stands on several controversial issues.
I have not had the opportunity to meet with you yet. Not your fault, you have been more than willing to meet but my work schedule has prevented us from meeting.
Please explain how Wyo SFW's is going to attempt to tackle access to private lands. This looks like a landowner tag proposal to me. Am I wrong in assuming this? Will you, as the president of Wyo SFW, publicly state that Wyo SFW opposes all landowner tags in the state of Wyoming? What is the win/win solution that you are proposing?
Why is Wyo SFW separating resident and nonresident hunters? Do you think a land owner should be able to sell nonresident hunters landowner tags to hunt their private property as long as resident hunters get access to the land?
What is Wyo SFW's stance on the corner jumping? This, to me, is an instance where private landowners are preventing resident and nonresident hunters from accessing public lands? Does Wyo SFW oppose or support corner jumping laws?
What is Wyo SFW's stance on the wilderness laws as it relates to nonresident big game hunters? Does Wyo SFW support or oppose the Wilderness guide law for nonresident big game hunters?
I am not attacking you but asking you, as the head of Wyo SFW, to define Wyo SFW's position on several hunting related issues. You have asked for Wyoming resident hunter support so as a Wyoming resident hunter I want to know where Wyo SFW stands on several controversial issues.
LAST EDITED ON Jul-18-11 AT 12:14PM (MST)[p]Ditto that Bob! I'll now be able to have a much better week ahead of me seeing that letter finalized and out for view!!! Might a future letter be forthcoming to all of us nonresidents that hunt and support Wyoming wildlife or are your access ideas just strictly for the benefit of residents? Then again, maybe this letter is just smoke and mirrors with the agenda actually being some type of set aside tag or landowner tag system!
SMOKESTICK
Active Member
- Messages
- 852
TOPGUN,
Currently, there is no plan to send anything out to non-residents. Doesn't mean we can't, just not the direction the Board went. As residents. most of the focus from the Board has been on residents. I guess that could change to include more non-resident issues but no one has suggested it. I do know that one thing we did discuss is the non-resident license fees. I doubt we will support any additional license fee increases on the non-resident side. Most of the Board, last time this was discussed believed we had pretty much maxed that out.
Currently, there is no plan to send anything out to non-residents. Doesn't mean we can't, just not the direction the Board went. As residents. most of the focus from the Board has been on residents. I guess that could change to include more non-resident issues but no one has suggested it. I do know that one thing we did discuss is the non-resident license fees. I doubt we will support any additional license fee increases on the non-resident side. Most of the Board, last time this was discussed believed we had pretty much maxed that out.
Utah400Elk
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,267
Topgun:
I sent you a PM
I sent you a PM
Good questions Utah400Elk! I asked Bob in a recent post how the organization comes up with a stance on an issue and didn't get more than what I considered a mocking remark back regarding polling! It would seem to me that the majority of interested/active members of an organization such as WYSFW should have the sole say in what the organization supports or opposes and that the leadership abide by those wishes. That, to me should be done by computer polling, phone calls, or by a tally of members at meetings, and/or a combination of these depending on how pressing the issue. I hope both of our posts are met with an open, constructive reply, rather than what has happened in the past. I'd sure like to help, rahter than hinder, a Wyoming organization such as SFW if it has the interests of ALL hunters in mind and at heart!!!
SMOKESTICK
Active Member
- Messages
- 852
Utah400Elk,
I do appreciate your willingness to meet and hope to be able to complete that task soon. No ones fault, just difficult to arrange our schedules living so far away. I still am uncertain when I will be in your neck of the woods but we can continue to keep in contact.
You ask a lot of questions and I am unsure that I can answer them all. I can always give you my take on them but ultimately it is up to the Board to make those decisions. All I know is that at the last G&F Commission meeting they mentioned that in the 90's when they set the 2010 Strategy, access was the biggest issue. I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth but I believe most would agree that we have had some gains with hunter management areas and walk-in hunting areas; however, I believe most would say that those programs are lacking; either in funding or somewhere else. All I know is that the access issue will not be resolves without working with landowners. Sportsmen will never be able to force access on to private lands. Meanwhile, significant private lands are being leased or hunting is not allowed. In your part of the state, actually a bit further North, they are having a lot of problems with large landowners growing elk and not killing enough cows. This is causing significant problems on surrounding ranches. At the February G&F Commission meeting some of the landowners where to the point of asking the state to aerially gun elk. Obviously, that will not help the situation at all but only divide ranchers and sportsmen. I have a bias towards the CWMU or Ranching for Wildlife program as I believe it created a win/win for the hunters I managed while working at Deseret Land & Livestock. Ultimately, it will be up to our members and leadership to decide which how to resolve this issue. All I know is that when I was at Deseret, 27% paid for access to hunt, 73% hunted for free. In the late 90's the G&F proposed something like a 50/50 split on a similar program. I have talked with a few people from my town and they didn't understand what the proposal entailed. Access is a huge issue, especially in the eastern 1/3 of the state.
Your second question is contained in my response to TOPGUN. Nothing against non-resident hunters; however, state elected officials want to know what their constituents want. Doesn't mean that we can not address non-resident issues but that does add one more level to an already complex process. Not really sure how we could fairly address the concerns or issues of non-residents as residents but I am open to any ideas.
It has already been debated and most it would appear oppose landowner licenses or tags. One thing that is difficult and I believe adds to the confusion is that landowner licenses and/or tags mean different things to different people. I believe because most states handle this issue differently. Some allow for them to be sold while others restrict it to only immediate family members. I am most familiar with Utah's landowner system as I grew up there (Glendale, just outside of Rose Park). There are things I do not like about Wyoming's system but it will not be easily changed, nor can it be changed without working with landowners. Once again, though, this problem will not solve itself. If we don't like the current system, how else do we change it? I believe we need to develop an alternative but once again, that is my personal opinion not the position of the Board.
Corner Jumping is difficult at best. There was a bill but it was introduced too late this session and was defeated soundly. Without a doubt, there are some landowners which abuse the checkerboard landowner patterns prominent throughout the west. In a perfect world there would be no checkerboard patterns. If I could be king for a day, I would require that all public lands be blocked up and access guaranteed in that process. That is something that makes sense but it would be very difficult to achieve given that most would prefer to avoid change. Change is scary to some and avoided by most. Frankly, the mixed private/public lands makes it difficult for just about everything. I know that getting habitat projects cleared and approved is difficult and requires so much time that most of these areas just remain in a neglected state. Kind of like the Tragedy of the Commons. The Representative from Natrona County may choose to offer the bill again with some changes but it will be unlikely for 2012 as it is a budget year. I will work with him if he desires my assistance.
I know that most on this site think of the wilderness guide law as being something dreamed up by outfitter's. I have spoken at length with some of our elected officials about this very topic. County Commissioners also played a major role in creating and defending this law. It has been challenged twice that I know of and both times it has prevailed. Does that mean that we don't have alternatives? No, but as I said before, this issue will not fix itself. It was one of the talking points I was going to address with outfitters when they asked WY SFW to support stabilizing their industry. I doubt we can repeal that law but it doesn't mean that we can not explore other fixes. However, the wolf issue has been much more important as I believe most would agree. Without the ability to manage wolves, none of this matters much. WY SFW has been spending almost all of its energy addressing this single issue. Hopefully, we are about to see some gains that will once again allow Wyoming management authority over wolves. Grizzly bears will be next, but you didn't ask about that. Once again, this reflects only my opinion. I have sent out an email to my Board about this post and asked them to visit it as well. Perhaps some of them may also be willing to comment; however, you have seen some have reacted towards SFW in general and they may not with to set themselves up for the abuse.
You can visit our web site and learn more about our goals & objectives by clicking on the ABOUT US tab and selecting goals & objectives.
I do appreciate your willingness to meet and hope to be able to complete that task soon. No ones fault, just difficult to arrange our schedules living so far away. I still am uncertain when I will be in your neck of the woods but we can continue to keep in contact.
You ask a lot of questions and I am unsure that I can answer them all. I can always give you my take on them but ultimately it is up to the Board to make those decisions. All I know is that at the last G&F Commission meeting they mentioned that in the 90's when they set the 2010 Strategy, access was the biggest issue. I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth but I believe most would agree that we have had some gains with hunter management areas and walk-in hunting areas; however, I believe most would say that those programs are lacking; either in funding or somewhere else. All I know is that the access issue will not be resolves without working with landowners. Sportsmen will never be able to force access on to private lands. Meanwhile, significant private lands are being leased or hunting is not allowed. In your part of the state, actually a bit further North, they are having a lot of problems with large landowners growing elk and not killing enough cows. This is causing significant problems on surrounding ranches. At the February G&F Commission meeting some of the landowners where to the point of asking the state to aerially gun elk. Obviously, that will not help the situation at all but only divide ranchers and sportsmen. I have a bias towards the CWMU or Ranching for Wildlife program as I believe it created a win/win for the hunters I managed while working at Deseret Land & Livestock. Ultimately, it will be up to our members and leadership to decide which how to resolve this issue. All I know is that when I was at Deseret, 27% paid for access to hunt, 73% hunted for free. In the late 90's the G&F proposed something like a 50/50 split on a similar program. I have talked with a few people from my town and they didn't understand what the proposal entailed. Access is a huge issue, especially in the eastern 1/3 of the state.
Your second question is contained in my response to TOPGUN. Nothing against non-resident hunters; however, state elected officials want to know what their constituents want. Doesn't mean that we can not address non-resident issues but that does add one more level to an already complex process. Not really sure how we could fairly address the concerns or issues of non-residents as residents but I am open to any ideas.
It has already been debated and most it would appear oppose landowner licenses or tags. One thing that is difficult and I believe adds to the confusion is that landowner licenses and/or tags mean different things to different people. I believe because most states handle this issue differently. Some allow for them to be sold while others restrict it to only immediate family members. I am most familiar with Utah's landowner system as I grew up there (Glendale, just outside of Rose Park). There are things I do not like about Wyoming's system but it will not be easily changed, nor can it be changed without working with landowners. Once again, though, this problem will not solve itself. If we don't like the current system, how else do we change it? I believe we need to develop an alternative but once again, that is my personal opinion not the position of the Board.
Corner Jumping is difficult at best. There was a bill but it was introduced too late this session and was defeated soundly. Without a doubt, there are some landowners which abuse the checkerboard landowner patterns prominent throughout the west. In a perfect world there would be no checkerboard patterns. If I could be king for a day, I would require that all public lands be blocked up and access guaranteed in that process. That is something that makes sense but it would be very difficult to achieve given that most would prefer to avoid change. Change is scary to some and avoided by most. Frankly, the mixed private/public lands makes it difficult for just about everything. I know that getting habitat projects cleared and approved is difficult and requires so much time that most of these areas just remain in a neglected state. Kind of like the Tragedy of the Commons. The Representative from Natrona County may choose to offer the bill again with some changes but it will be unlikely for 2012 as it is a budget year. I will work with him if he desires my assistance.
I know that most on this site think of the wilderness guide law as being something dreamed up by outfitter's. I have spoken at length with some of our elected officials about this very topic. County Commissioners also played a major role in creating and defending this law. It has been challenged twice that I know of and both times it has prevailed. Does that mean that we don't have alternatives? No, but as I said before, this issue will not fix itself. It was one of the talking points I was going to address with outfitters when they asked WY SFW to support stabilizing their industry. I doubt we can repeal that law but it doesn't mean that we can not explore other fixes. However, the wolf issue has been much more important as I believe most would agree. Without the ability to manage wolves, none of this matters much. WY SFW has been spending almost all of its energy addressing this single issue. Hopefully, we are about to see some gains that will once again allow Wyoming management authority over wolves. Grizzly bears will be next, but you didn't ask about that. Once again, this reflects only my opinion. I have sent out an email to my Board about this post and asked them to visit it as well. Perhaps some of them may also be willing to comment; however, you have seen some have reacted towards SFW in general and they may not with to set themselves up for the abuse.
You can visit our web site and learn more about our goals & objectives by clicking on the ABOUT US tab and selecting goals & objectives.
Utah400Elk
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,267
Bob:
Thank you for the response. I appreciate you taking the time to address several of my questions.
I am against any system that allows landowners to sell state wildlife. I don't like the Utah CWMU system, the Colorado system, the New Mexico System (landowner tags) or the Nevada system. To me these landowners can sell access to their land but they should not be given the tags that guarantee tags for their paying clients over the general public. It is their land and they can do whatever they want with it. They should not be able to sell state tags. JMO.
To the second point...you are a nonresident in other states and once were in Wyoming.
Corner jumping is a joke. If a person can find the corner of a property and not trespass onto the private then it should be legal. Wyo SFW should take a stance and fight for all hunters resident and nonresident in regards to this issue. If SFW Wyo would fight for access for all you might find more who are willing to join your ranks?
The wilderness law is a joke. I was a Utah and Colorado resident before a Wyoming resident. It does not make any sense that it was un safe for me to hunt in the wilderness but after living in Wyoming for a year I became safe. Again, Wyo SFW should take and stance and fight for all hunters to have equal access to hunting areas. I believe that if Wyo SFW would do this they would find more people who would again be willing to be counted with them.
Thanks again for your time and I look forward to meeting with you.
Thank you for the response. I appreciate you taking the time to address several of my questions.
I am against any system that allows landowners to sell state wildlife. I don't like the Utah CWMU system, the Colorado system, the New Mexico System (landowner tags) or the Nevada system. To me these landowners can sell access to their land but they should not be given the tags that guarantee tags for their paying clients over the general public. It is their land and they can do whatever they want with it. They should not be able to sell state tags. JMO.
To the second point...you are a nonresident in other states and once were in Wyoming.
Corner jumping is a joke. If a person can find the corner of a property and not trespass onto the private then it should be legal. Wyo SFW should take a stance and fight for all hunters resident and nonresident in regards to this issue. If SFW Wyo would fight for access for all you might find more who are willing to join your ranks?
The wilderness law is a joke. I was a Utah and Colorado resident before a Wyoming resident. It does not make any sense that it was un safe for me to hunt in the wilderness but after living in Wyoming for a year I became safe. Again, Wyo SFW should take and stance and fight for all hunters to have equal access to hunting areas. I believe that if Wyo SFW would do this they would find more people who would again be willing to be counted with them.
Thanks again for your time and I look forward to meeting with you.
LAST EDITED ON Jul-18-11 AT 02:22PM (MST)[p]SMOKESTICK---Funny you mentioned your bias towards CWMUs in Utah and the Ranching for Wildlife program down in Colorado. Reading all the comments from the Utah guys on this site it sounds like the majority thinks it sucks. I don't know because I haven't been involved with it. However, I can tell you that I will not spend one red cent in Colorado after the way they screwed all the nonresidents, including myself, that were in the R for W Program. I had 4 PPs for deer and elk and had my plans all set to hunt the Gravel Ranch after I had enough PPs when I retired in 2002. All of a sudden the nonresidents were mailed the annual F&G Booklet stating that a law had been passed disallowing nonresidents from the public drawing on those places. You and I know exactly why it was done (more $ for landowners & outfitters), so please don't even try to address the issue! I will just say again that all I have heard in your responses, including your last post, is YOUR position on things and now that the BOARD will make the decisions. Again I will ask how any binding decision by the Board can be made without an in-depth discussion with the dues paying members as much as possible? I hate to say it Bob, but it appears that when I read between the lines, I am seeing what appears to be a possible attempt to go the route of Utah and/or Colorado with their systems or possbily something even worse in what you are saying will open up more private lands and result in a win-win situation. I guess I would have to ask if the first winner is the WYSFW and the second winner is the landowners and/or outfitters, rather than us average Joes with somewhat restricted funds to hunt "the good places"? These are just a few thoughts that immediately came to mind after reading your post. Thanks for your immediate response to our posts though and have a good day!!!
PS: Regarding the corner jumping issue---there is a thread on here right now where a guy had a ticket for trespassing dismissed for that same thing. There is no law on the books in Wyoming making it illegal, but the F&G tries to BS the public into not doing it because they are too beholding to the rich landowners. I know this for a fact in the dealings I've had with a F&G Warden/Biologist and the Washakie County Prosecutor if you care to look in the other thread where I posted information on this site that addresses corner jumping.
PS: Regarding the corner jumping issue---there is a thread on here right now where a guy had a ticket for trespassing dismissed for that same thing. There is no law on the books in Wyoming making it illegal, but the F&G tries to BS the public into not doing it because they are too beholding to the rich landowners. I know this for a fact in the dealings I've had with a F&G Warden/Biologist and the Washakie County Prosecutor if you care to look in the other thread where I posted information on this site that addresses corner jumping.
SMOKESTICK
Active Member
- Messages
- 852
Utah400Elk,
That is why I am asking people to address access. There are many problems and I believe as many solutions. People just need to do more than just talk about the issue(s). I believe we are smart enough to find a solution but it takes a united approach. More than likely some give and take from all sides will be required in order to address these challenges. I don't know of any system that is perfect but we can all see what we have currently available to us. Having played a role in the CWMU program, I would argue that you can not stop private landowners which hold large tracts of land from charging an access fee or outright leasing their private property. The CWMU program allowed people to access private lands and allowed the landowners to do what they already had the power to do; grant access to hunt on their place. The licenses were only good on the private ground and all parties were to be given equal access to the private property.
I believe the current system is being exploited by landowners and outfitters a like and sportsmen get nothing. We can continue the same thing an expect a different outcome or we can explore ways to allow sportsmen a place to hunt without jeopardizing either outfitters or landowners. That to me is a win/win. We may have to disagree on this topic but ultimately doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome is a definition on insanity.
In my opinion, the solution is found in getting people together with common goals & objectives and brain storming for possible solutions. Both corner crossing and the wilderness law have some basis. We must assume that or those that reside in the state will assume that we are trying to change their state. These are complex issues and will not be easily done away with. However, grumbling about them will not effect a change neither. Labeling each other as the bad guy without ever getting into the meat of the problem will not resolve these problems. We must first understand the basis and foundation for those laws then we can attempt to either address that foundation or find a solution to the identified problem (real or imagined) that led to those laws.
Thanks for your time and interest. Hopefully, this will lead to some solutions and demonstrate that we have more in common than in opposition. After all, if all of the various environmental groups can function with their sole purpose(s), shouldn't we also be able to as well? Our diversity can be our strength if we don't allow it to keep us divided.
That is why I am asking people to address access. There are many problems and I believe as many solutions. People just need to do more than just talk about the issue(s). I believe we are smart enough to find a solution but it takes a united approach. More than likely some give and take from all sides will be required in order to address these challenges. I don't know of any system that is perfect but we can all see what we have currently available to us. Having played a role in the CWMU program, I would argue that you can not stop private landowners which hold large tracts of land from charging an access fee or outright leasing their private property. The CWMU program allowed people to access private lands and allowed the landowners to do what they already had the power to do; grant access to hunt on their place. The licenses were only good on the private ground and all parties were to be given equal access to the private property.
I believe the current system is being exploited by landowners and outfitters a like and sportsmen get nothing. We can continue the same thing an expect a different outcome or we can explore ways to allow sportsmen a place to hunt without jeopardizing either outfitters or landowners. That to me is a win/win. We may have to disagree on this topic but ultimately doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome is a definition on insanity.
In my opinion, the solution is found in getting people together with common goals & objectives and brain storming for possible solutions. Both corner crossing and the wilderness law have some basis. We must assume that or those that reside in the state will assume that we are trying to change their state. These are complex issues and will not be easily done away with. However, grumbling about them will not effect a change neither. Labeling each other as the bad guy without ever getting into the meat of the problem will not resolve these problems. We must first understand the basis and foundation for those laws then we can attempt to either address that foundation or find a solution to the identified problem (real or imagined) that led to those laws.
Thanks for your time and interest. Hopefully, this will lead to some solutions and demonstrate that we have more in common than in opposition. After all, if all of the various environmental groups can function with their sole purpose(s), shouldn't we also be able to as well? Our diversity can be our strength if we don't allow it to keep us divided.
Utah400Elk
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,267
LAST EDITED ON Jul-18-11 AT 03:05PM (MST)[p]Bob:
I have not been around the Utah CWMU program for a while so things may have changed... There previously were some public grounds that were put into the Utah CWMU programs. Not sure if that has changed. Taking an area that was open to the general public and giving access and control to the CWMU operators was not a good thing in my mind.
As I have said, the landowners can charge what they want for people to enter their lands but allowing them to skip the draw for their paying clients is not ok.
Giving a few people a pass on a draw system (via a CWMU program) is not the best way forward IMO. I don't think of the landowners as the bad guys. It is their property and they should be able to do what they want with it. Giving them Wyoming state tags is entirely different. They own the land and not the animals.
I am not saying we should do the same thing and expect a different outcome. I am not even saying there is a major problem. I live in the East side of the state and can find more than enough areas to hunt. I think we could look at the corner jumping laws and wilderness laws and make substantial differences in land access issues. Giving Wyoming state tags to landowners and outfitters to sell is a bad road to start down and I feel could end up pushing Wyoming towards a Utah style system.
The wilderness law has no merit and is a giveaway for the guides. If there was a safety concern then fishing, sightseeing and small game hunting should also be banned for nonresidents in the wilderness. I know a lot of Wyoming residents who should not be allowed out of their houses for safety but they can hunt the wilderness. I also know a lot of people from other states who are more than capable of being safe in the wilderness during the big game season. The law is a joke and everybody knows it! It is a hamstring to force nonresidents to hire a guide to hunt the Wyoming wilderness.
The corner jumping argument is terrible. It is an attempt by a few landowners to keep the general public off public lands. I believe that all public lands should be open to the public.
I have not been around the Utah CWMU program for a while so things may have changed... There previously were some public grounds that were put into the Utah CWMU programs. Not sure if that has changed. Taking an area that was open to the general public and giving access and control to the CWMU operators was not a good thing in my mind.
As I have said, the landowners can charge what they want for people to enter their lands but allowing them to skip the draw for their paying clients is not ok.
Giving a few people a pass on a draw system (via a CWMU program) is not the best way forward IMO. I don't think of the landowners as the bad guys. It is their property and they should be able to do what they want with it. Giving them Wyoming state tags is entirely different. They own the land and not the animals.
I am not saying we should do the same thing and expect a different outcome. I am not even saying there is a major problem. I live in the East side of the state and can find more than enough areas to hunt. I think we could look at the corner jumping laws and wilderness laws and make substantial differences in land access issues. Giving Wyoming state tags to landowners and outfitters to sell is a bad road to start down and I feel could end up pushing Wyoming towards a Utah style system.
The wilderness law has no merit and is a giveaway for the guides. If there was a safety concern then fishing, sightseeing and small game hunting should also be banned for nonresidents in the wilderness. I know a lot of Wyoming residents who should not be allowed out of their houses for safety but they can hunt the wilderness. I also know a lot of people from other states who are more than capable of being safe in the wilderness during the big game season. The law is a joke and everybody knows it! It is a hamstring to force nonresidents to hire a guide to hunt the Wyoming wilderness.
The corner jumping argument is terrible. It is an attempt by a few landowners to keep the general public off public lands. I believe that all public lands should be open to the public.
SMOKESTICK
Active Member
- Messages
- 852
TOPGUN,
The discussions are just starting. I have clearly stated my opinion and my opinion alone. The position the group takes will be up to our members and leadership as I stated before. I believe there is enough large tracts of public land within Wyoming that the DIY, average Joe will have a place to go. I know numerous individual which have participated in the CWMU program which like it a lot. As I stated earlier, 27% paid to hunt so that 73% could hunt for free. I believe most of the "good places" as you put it are already unavailable to the majority of average Joe's who reside in Wyoming. I have no idea what the outcome will be, but access is only going to get more difficult. I am willing to take your criticism but I would ask you to offer potential solutions as well. It is usually more difficult to throw out an idea and defend it than it is to simply critique other ideas.
I am well aware of the corner crossing issue. I even read the link you provided. However, I would not encourage people to take these actions unless they are willing to deal with the consequences. While I do not agree with landowners blocking access to public lands I will not mislead people into thinking that there are no consequences. From what I recall, the G&F has already enacted a policy that they will not issue citations for corner crossing; however, County Sheriff's can still issue citations for that act. Some may not elect to do it; however, some may not have a choice either as every Sheriff is elected. Most of the larger landowners pay a lot of taxes into County budgets and they will put a lot of pressure on Sheriff departments to enforce this law. As I mentioned, a bill was introduced but it came in too late. Until this issue is clearly resolved, I would not want to be the guinea pig, so to speak. even the article which you posted eluded to the fact that it is vague at best whether or not the law exists. It didn't conclude that it was legal.
The discussions are just starting. I have clearly stated my opinion and my opinion alone. The position the group takes will be up to our members and leadership as I stated before. I believe there is enough large tracts of public land within Wyoming that the DIY, average Joe will have a place to go. I know numerous individual which have participated in the CWMU program which like it a lot. As I stated earlier, 27% paid to hunt so that 73% could hunt for free. I believe most of the "good places" as you put it are already unavailable to the majority of average Joe's who reside in Wyoming. I have no idea what the outcome will be, but access is only going to get more difficult. I am willing to take your criticism but I would ask you to offer potential solutions as well. It is usually more difficult to throw out an idea and defend it than it is to simply critique other ideas.
I am well aware of the corner crossing issue. I even read the link you provided. However, I would not encourage people to take these actions unless they are willing to deal with the consequences. While I do not agree with landowners blocking access to public lands I will not mislead people into thinking that there are no consequences. From what I recall, the G&F has already enacted a policy that they will not issue citations for corner crossing; however, County Sheriff's can still issue citations for that act. Some may not elect to do it; however, some may not have a choice either as every Sheriff is elected. Most of the larger landowners pay a lot of taxes into County budgets and they will put a lot of pressure on Sheriff departments to enforce this law. As I mentioned, a bill was introduced but it came in too late. Until this issue is clearly resolved, I would not want to be the guinea pig, so to speak. even the article which you posted eluded to the fact that it is vague at best whether or not the law exists. It didn't conclude that it was legal.
SMOKESTICK
Active Member
- Messages
- 852
Utah400Elk,
From what I have seen in Wyoming all a landowner needs to do now is wait for their unit to go under-subscribed and then all of the license become available for non-residents to purchase, effectively negating any drawing what so ever. That doesn't seem fair to me either.
I don't know how or if the CWMU program has changed but I do know that Deseret gave a proportional number of antelope tags back to the public as they had some checker-board public lands contained within the antelope CWMU hunt area. There was limited access to a few blocks of public lands but no vehicle access existed. I believed that Deseret found a way to address that conflict but do not know how it was handled elsewhere. The Utah system was basically based on a 90/10 split for most of the species. The Wyoming law started with a 50/50 ratio which makes more sense to me; 100% private property and 100% public resource.
I don't know what the solution is but expecting things to improve while doing the same thing isn't the answer either.
The wilderness law had a lot of support from the County Commissioner's. I agree 100% with you. Just because I am a resident doesn't mean I am qualified to entire the wilderness either. Like I said though, everyone needs to understand the foundation for this law. It has been tried twice before and been up held by the courts. Like I said to TOPGUN, I believe we need to come up with a solution to the issues that lead to the creation of the law; otherwise, we are only changing the law because we are outsiders or newcomers to the state.
From what I have seen in Wyoming all a landowner needs to do now is wait for their unit to go under-subscribed and then all of the license become available for non-residents to purchase, effectively negating any drawing what so ever. That doesn't seem fair to me either.
I don't know how or if the CWMU program has changed but I do know that Deseret gave a proportional number of antelope tags back to the public as they had some checker-board public lands contained within the antelope CWMU hunt area. There was limited access to a few blocks of public lands but no vehicle access existed. I believed that Deseret found a way to address that conflict but do not know how it was handled elsewhere. The Utah system was basically based on a 90/10 split for most of the species. The Wyoming law started with a 50/50 ratio which makes more sense to me; 100% private property and 100% public resource.
I don't know what the solution is but expecting things to improve while doing the same thing isn't the answer either.
The wilderness law had a lot of support from the County Commissioner's. I agree 100% with you. Just because I am a resident doesn't mean I am qualified to entire the wilderness either. Like I said though, everyone needs to understand the foundation for this law. It has been tried twice before and been up held by the courts. Like I said to TOPGUN, I believe we need to come up with a solution to the issues that lead to the creation of the law; otherwise, we are only changing the law because we are outsiders or newcomers to the state.
LAST EDITED ON Jul-18-11 AT 06:29PM (MST)[p]
SMOKESTICK---I hate to bother you any further, but I have a question as to what you mean and how it involves a fairness issue in this statement regarding Wyoming licenses:
"All a landowner needs to do now is wait for their unit to go under-subscribed and then all of the license become available for non-residents to purchase, effectively negating any drawing what so ever. That doesn't seem fair to me either"
Also, I would agree with Utah440Elk that two things now on the books that SFW should strive to correct before they do anything else is to resolve the corner jumping issue that would open up vast amounts of acreage to the public, as well as getting the nonresident wilderness exclusion foolishness rescinded. If the organization can do those two things, then I don't believe a lot of the other methods of tag sales, etc. that you might be thinking about would be necessary or needed.
PS: I will mention again that there is no law against corner jumping and that's exactly why the F&G normally will not even look into a call if it involves that type of access to public land. You are correct that a County Prosecutor or County Sheriff may be pressed by the landwoner to issue a ticket anyway, especially if it's a nonresident because they know it's too expensive to fight it whether it's on the books or not. That's exactly why the rancher wanted us to be ticketed and is basically what came right out of the mouth of the Game Warden I'm friends with out there.
SMOKESTICK---I hate to bother you any further, but I have a question as to what you mean and how it involves a fairness issue in this statement regarding Wyoming licenses:
"All a landowner needs to do now is wait for their unit to go under-subscribed and then all of the license become available for non-residents to purchase, effectively negating any drawing what so ever. That doesn't seem fair to me either"
Also, I would agree with Utah440Elk that two things now on the books that SFW should strive to correct before they do anything else is to resolve the corner jumping issue that would open up vast amounts of acreage to the public, as well as getting the nonresident wilderness exclusion foolishness rescinded. If the organization can do those two things, then I don't believe a lot of the other methods of tag sales, etc. that you might be thinking about would be necessary or needed.
PS: I will mention again that there is no law against corner jumping and that's exactly why the F&G normally will not even look into a call if it involves that type of access to public land. You are correct that a County Prosecutor or County Sheriff may be pressed by the landwoner to issue a ticket anyway, especially if it's a nonresident because they know it's too expensive to fight it whether it's on the books or not. That's exactly why the rancher wanted us to be ticketed and is basically what came right out of the mouth of the Game Warden I'm friends with out there.
LAST EDITED ON Jul-19-11 AT 10:15AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jul-19-11 AT 10:07?AM (MST)
This sounds like a attempt to fix a nonexistent problem. Everyone knows Wyoming has the best access system/ landowner tag system in he west.
Access yes pays top dollar for b,c,d quality properties. Sometimes the access program scores a unleasable quality property. Any true a quality property is leased to the highest bidder, normally outfitters, and zero benefit to the public. Is realized.
Le tags are not transferable, except when the land owner fabricates a partnership to some wealthy person, subdivides property into landowner tag size portions and sells them to wealthy hunters, or the landowners Son in law gets the same choice tags year after year. Whatever scenerio plays out no benefit is realized from the general public.
I can't understand why anyone would want to fix this system? At least Wyoming's wildlife isn't being sold to the highest bidder, oh nevermind? At least the public gets some access from the system as it stands now; oh nevermind. I ask again why would anyone want a change in the best system. In the west?
This sounds like a attempt to fix a nonexistent problem. Everyone knows Wyoming has the best access system/ landowner tag system in he west.
Access yes pays top dollar for b,c,d quality properties. Sometimes the access program scores a unleasable quality property. Any true a quality property is leased to the highest bidder, normally outfitters, and zero benefit to the public. Is realized.
Le tags are not transferable, except when the land owner fabricates a partnership to some wealthy person, subdivides property into landowner tag size portions and sells them to wealthy hunters, or the landowners Son in law gets the same choice tags year after year. Whatever scenerio plays out no benefit is realized from the general public.
I can't understand why anyone would want to fix this system? At least Wyoming's wildlife isn't being sold to the highest bidder, oh nevermind? At least the public gets some access from the system as it stands now; oh nevermind. I ask again why would anyone want a change in the best system. In the west?
Utah400Elk
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,267
I moved to Wyoming from Utah. If you think the Utah system is the way to go then so be it. I personally don't think Wyoming should follow Utah's system.
Where would the tags that are put into a Wyoming style CWMU program come from? I am guessing the available LE permits. I am totally against taking tags available to the public and giving them to a landowner to sell. Even a 50% split takes half the tags available and gives them to the landowners. To me that is not a win/win.
I would just ask the question of the guys from Northern Utah how they feel about a CWMU type system. I am pretty sure that for the average hunter, the Northern portion of Utah has been hurt by the CWMU program. The average hunter?s access has hurt not helped by the CWMU?s.
The Wyoming system is not perfect but it, I my opinion, is the best system out there!
Bob has previously said Wyo SFW "never supported set aside for outfitters or anyone else". I am sorry but to me, that is exactly what this win/win situation is. A set aside for landowners/guides to sell.
I am not sure where everybody else in Wyoming is hunting but I have not had any problems finding areas to hunt and I live on the east side of the state. Even in the eastern side of the state you can still ask for permission to hunt and get access. If you were a landowner and were given the option of allowing hunters on your land for free or getting tags you could sell which way would you go?
Private property is just that private property. The land owners can do what they want with their land. I don't think Wyoming should give them state tags to sell to try and buy access. I don't think it's needed.
Most of Utah's hunts are now a OIL hunt. The draw odds are terrible and inches rule the day. I would hate to see Wyoming start down that path. In Wyoming, with a little work, anybody can still have a great hunt.
Where would the tags that are put into a Wyoming style CWMU program come from? I am guessing the available LE permits. I am totally against taking tags available to the public and giving them to a landowner to sell. Even a 50% split takes half the tags available and gives them to the landowners. To me that is not a win/win.
I would just ask the question of the guys from Northern Utah how they feel about a CWMU type system. I am pretty sure that for the average hunter, the Northern portion of Utah has been hurt by the CWMU program. The average hunter?s access has hurt not helped by the CWMU?s.
The Wyoming system is not perfect but it, I my opinion, is the best system out there!
Bob has previously said Wyo SFW "never supported set aside for outfitters or anyone else". I am sorry but to me, that is exactly what this win/win situation is. A set aside for landowners/guides to sell.
I am not sure where everybody else in Wyoming is hunting but I have not had any problems finding areas to hunt and I live on the east side of the state. Even in the eastern side of the state you can still ask for permission to hunt and get access. If you were a landowner and were given the option of allowing hunters on your land for free or getting tags you could sell which way would you go?
Private property is just that private property. The land owners can do what they want with their land. I don't think Wyoming should give them state tags to sell to try and buy access. I don't think it's needed.
Most of Utah's hunts are now a OIL hunt. The draw odds are terrible and inches rule the day. I would hate to see Wyoming start down that path. In Wyoming, with a little work, anybody can still have a great hunt.
I definitely agree with both of you guys. The Wyoming system isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than anywhere else out where antelope, mulies, and elk can be hunted. IMO it appears that what Bob has said he is opposed to is exactly what he hopes his group can push through and make tags similar to Utah or Colorado, Those systems are not designed to help the average hunter no matter what is stated and, like was mentioned, I would hate to see a lot of the Wyoming tags end up being a OIL tag when now they can be pulled every few years. IMO the outfitters don't need any help staying in business, other than getting wolves and grizzlies delisted and their numbers brought down so that the ungulate population is significant to allow decent hunting opportunities in the areas they work. Montana just did away with outfitter sponsored tags and the good outfits will make a living from repeat customer and word of mouth if they offer a good camp and do their best to give a guy a good hunt. I feel the same can be said if the nonresident wilderness guide requirement is rescinded in WY.
PleaseDear
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 10,450
After printing this letter and taking it into the 'sit down office' and reading thru and thru---
Once I crossed out the 70-80 % advertising/marketing/membership drive parts---I pretty much do not read anything of value for wanting to change the current system for public access nor changing the current LO tag system as they are not legally transferable.
True--some of the HMA's have late date access rules in print---but---I have never had a LO in the HMA ever tell me NO I could not hunt with my bow during the bow dates---just being polite and giving him a heads-up to my hunt dates on his property was enough....whats wrong with that?
Unless SFW's agenda is to change the rules--- so now in the future Outfitters that have the land leased for hunting will then get the LO tags (that would normally go directly to the LO) and use them as they want-----???? I see this letter as nothing more than another SFW push for $$$ so we can have a 'voice'....haha to funny----
Why re-invent the wheel when it already is rolling along just fine?
Robb
PS--you have gone way out of your way to try and convince us all that SFW-Wyo is seperate and has nothing to do with SFW-----but then why is SFW-Wyo still in the SFW-rag-mag 'Sportsmans Voice'...? ---simple question....
Once I crossed out the 70-80 % advertising/marketing/membership drive parts---I pretty much do not read anything of value for wanting to change the current system for public access nor changing the current LO tag system as they are not legally transferable.
True--some of the HMA's have late date access rules in print---but---I have never had a LO in the HMA ever tell me NO I could not hunt with my bow during the bow dates---just being polite and giving him a heads-up to my hunt dates on his property was enough....whats wrong with that?
Unless SFW's agenda is to change the rules--- so now in the future Outfitters that have the land leased for hunting will then get the LO tags (that would normally go directly to the LO) and use them as they want-----???? I see this letter as nothing more than another SFW push for $$$ so we can have a 'voice'....haha to funny----
Why re-invent the wheel when it already is rolling along just fine?
Robb
PS--you have gone way out of your way to try and convince us all that SFW-Wyo is seperate and has nothing to do with SFW-----but then why is SFW-Wyo still in the SFW-rag-mag 'Sportsmans Voice'...? ---simple question....
SMOKESTICK
Active Member
- Messages
- 852
So you are all saying that access is not an issue in Wyoming? Am I misunderstanding your comments?
The letter talks about other issues as well. It wasn't just designed to talk about access. I would believe that most people on MM would like to see Wyoming managing all of its wildlife. That is obviously one of the points of the letter as well. If you think the wolf issue has been easy just wait until we started going after the grizzly bears. Wyoming needs to be much more aggressive in obtaining management authority of grizzlies. That will only come from sportsmen putting more pressure and putting that pressure in the right places.
If you take the time to visit the web site, you can also see what other goals & objectives have been identified. Initially, the letter was 2 pages, front and back. Too much information and would most likely just be tossed aside.
Robb - The reason WY SFW is in the same magazine as everyone else is to benefit from the cost of producing the Sportsmen's Voice. Each section of the magazine is sent in by the respective states. If you look, each state provides a list of the respective leadership from each state as well. Simple answer to your simple question .. money!
The letter talks about other issues as well. It wasn't just designed to talk about access. I would believe that most people on MM would like to see Wyoming managing all of its wildlife. That is obviously one of the points of the letter as well. If you think the wolf issue has been easy just wait until we started going after the grizzly bears. Wyoming needs to be much more aggressive in obtaining management authority of grizzlies. That will only come from sportsmen putting more pressure and putting that pressure in the right places.
If you take the time to visit the web site, you can also see what other goals & objectives have been identified. Initially, the letter was 2 pages, front and back. Too much information and would most likely just be tossed aside.
Robb - The reason WY SFW is in the same magazine as everyone else is to benefit from the cost of producing the Sportsmen's Voice. Each section of the magazine is sent in by the respective states. If you look, each state provides a list of the respective leadership from each state as well. Simple answer to your simple question .. money!
LAST EDITED ON Jul-19-11 AT 03:17PM (MST)[p]
I have read all the posts you seem to be referring to and other than one sentence Feduptwo wrote that was immediately followed by a statement the rest of us made, it doesn't look like anyone said that the system couldn't be tweekd a little. However, rather than your coming on here and telling us all that you didn't mean that you were espousing what we think you are, you turned the tables back on us. This is exactly what you have been doing in every thread. Just come out and say in plain English that you want to help outfitters and landowners in Wyoming the way the system works in Utah and/or CO and be done with it! This beating around the bush and acting like we are all idiots and can't see what is really your overall plan is very aggravating to all of us who can see through the smokescreen that is being put up every time you post. I can see that eventually there is going to be another battle if any attempt is made by your organization to go the route of Utah and/or Colorado and it ain't gonna fly!!! Your organization might be doing some good on certain things but IMHO it should stay out of any attempt to change the tag system that is now in place. Here are the sentences in the previous posts that I referred to and that sums up how we feel:
Feduptwo---This sounds like a attempt to fix a nonexistent problem. Everyone knows Wyoming has the best access system/ landowner tag system in the west.
Utah400elk---The Wyoming system is not perfect but it, in my opinion, is the best system out there!
Topgun---The Wyoming system isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than anywhere else out where antelope, mulies, and elk can be hunted.
PleaseDear---I pretty much do not read anything of value for wanting to change the current system for public access nor changing the current LO tag system as they are not legally transferable.
I have read all the posts you seem to be referring to and other than one sentence Feduptwo wrote that was immediately followed by a statement the rest of us made, it doesn't look like anyone said that the system couldn't be tweekd a little. However, rather than your coming on here and telling us all that you didn't mean that you were espousing what we think you are, you turned the tables back on us. This is exactly what you have been doing in every thread. Just come out and say in plain English that you want to help outfitters and landowners in Wyoming the way the system works in Utah and/or CO and be done with it! This beating around the bush and acting like we are all idiots and can't see what is really your overall plan is very aggravating to all of us who can see through the smokescreen that is being put up every time you post. I can see that eventually there is going to be another battle if any attempt is made by your organization to go the route of Utah and/or Colorado and it ain't gonna fly!!! Your organization might be doing some good on certain things but IMHO it should stay out of any attempt to change the tag system that is now in place. Here are the sentences in the previous posts that I referred to and that sums up how we feel:
Feduptwo---This sounds like a attempt to fix a nonexistent problem. Everyone knows Wyoming has the best access system/ landowner tag system in the west.
Utah400elk---The Wyoming system is not perfect but it, in my opinion, is the best system out there!
Topgun---The Wyoming system isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than anywhere else out where antelope, mulies, and elk can be hunted.
PleaseDear---I pretty much do not read anything of value for wanting to change the current system for public access nor changing the current LO tag system as they are not legally transferable.
LAST EDITED ON Jul-19-11 AT 05:23PM (MST)[p]Wyomings system sucks. Landowner permits Already come out of the available permits. I would make landowners agree to a % of permits cap and tie landowner tags to public access. I mean I would tie the ability to sell landowner tags to access.
As far as Cwmu style access program goes ask the people in northern Utah how they liked the access before Cwmu. At least a small % of Utah public hunt in a quality property unlike Wyoming's unless you pay the tresspass.
Topgun if you don't like the fact that residents get all Cwmu permits move to the state in question, then you will be eligible. Residents should get some perks for living in the state they chose
As far as Cwmu style access program goes ask the people in northern Utah how they liked the access before Cwmu. At least a small % of Utah public hunt in a quality property unlike Wyoming's unless you pay the tresspass.
Topgun if you don't like the fact that residents get all Cwmu permits move to the state in question, then you will be eligible. Residents should get some perks for living in the state they chose
W
wyowill
Guest
Hope it is okay to jump in here. Looks like most of the discussion has been between just a few. I have lived in Wyoming for 60 years. Have hunted almost all of them. As for access issues, what I hate to experience, and have experienced, is when a landowner owns a quarter section of land that is bordered by a couple of sections of public land but since the access road goes through his private property he controls the access to the public land. So he decides to charge an access fee to HIS land and he is in fact getting fees for allowing access to the PUBLIC lands as well. I have proposed to several legislators over the years that they pass a law simply stating that anyone leasing the surface rights (grazing and etc) of public lands must guarantee access to the public to those same lands. In my area of the state, many fine sections of good hunting grounds are inaccessible because of this type of scenario. This is what I want to see remedied. I am a member of SFWWY and have voiced this concern to them as well.
I also joined this organization because I want my money to go to addressing the issues of this state. No other organization offers me this choice. RMEF, Mule Deer Foundation and others are more than happy to take my dollars and use them throughout the west and I get no say in what happens to them. I also joined because SFW has taken on more of a political stance in the state and has gotten in the face of F&G on some of the issues. They have also stood shoulder to shoulder with F&G when we were in agreement. Sad to say that game and fish is a political battle more and more and in the world of politics numbers matter the most. Numbers trump science in many instances. Numbers can also trump bad policies and bring about good ones. Policies set by the legislature are marching orders to the Fish and Game personnel. I can argue with a director till I am blue in the face but if I get in the face of a legislator with numbers I can get something changed or change the legislator. Numbers are what they know the best.
Join us, bring your ideas and your complaints to the discussion. Let us work together as sportsmen and women of this great state to return our hunting and fishing opportunities and rewards to what they once were and could be again. I can tell you that in 60 years they are nothing like the ones I remember from my younger years.
I also joined this organization because I want my money to go to addressing the issues of this state. No other organization offers me this choice. RMEF, Mule Deer Foundation and others are more than happy to take my dollars and use them throughout the west and I get no say in what happens to them. I also joined because SFW has taken on more of a political stance in the state and has gotten in the face of F&G on some of the issues. They have also stood shoulder to shoulder with F&G when we were in agreement. Sad to say that game and fish is a political battle more and more and in the world of politics numbers matter the most. Numbers trump science in many instances. Numbers can also trump bad policies and bring about good ones. Policies set by the legislature are marching orders to the Fish and Game personnel. I can argue with a director till I am blue in the face but if I get in the face of a legislator with numbers I can get something changed or change the legislator. Numbers are what they know the best.
Join us, bring your ideas and your complaints to the discussion. Let us work together as sportsmen and women of this great state to return our hunting and fishing opportunities and rewards to what they once were and could be again. I can tell you that in 60 years they are nothing like the ones I remember from my younger years.
Feduptwo---I guess knowing you that I should have read more than your opening statement to see that it was followed by tongue in cheek statements that were actually opposite to that opener! My bad!!! I think you are way off base in your Wyoming comments and WTF are you jumping on me just because I have an opinion contrary to yours!
"I mean I would tie the ability to sell landowner tags to access." Obviously you and Bob share the same bed, LOL!
"As far as CWMU style access program goes ask the people in northern Utah how they liked the access before CWMU." I don't need to when I read all of the negative comments being made by a large percentage of the Utah residents on this site in regards to yuor present system!
"Topgun if you don't like the fact that residents get all CWMU permits move to the state in question, then you will be eligible. Residents should get some perks for living in the state they chose." I could give a rats azz how Utah does their system as I have no yearning to go there for a hunt! Also, nowhere have I ever said that residents shouldn't get perks, as long as they aren't unreasonable and that's why I continue to hunt Wyoming every year and stay away from Utah and Colorado!
"I mean I would tie the ability to sell landowner tags to access." Obviously you and Bob share the same bed, LOL!
"As far as CWMU style access program goes ask the people in northern Utah how they liked the access before CWMU." I don't need to when I read all of the negative comments being made by a large percentage of the Utah residents on this site in regards to yuor present system!
"Topgun if you don't like the fact that residents get all CWMU permits move to the state in question, then you will be eligible. Residents should get some perks for living in the state they chose." I could give a rats azz how Utah does their system as I have no yearning to go there for a hunt! Also, nowhere have I ever said that residents shouldn't get perks, as long as they aren't unreasonable and that's why I continue to hunt Wyoming every year and stay away from Utah and Colorado!
Utah400Elk
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,267
Feduptwo:
Have you ever lived in Utah? Their system sucks! Selling public wildlife is not the answer. I have hunted in Northern Utah many times and the CWMU program hurt access. Not too long ago I could get access into private land in northern Utah after the expanse of the CWMU program access dried up! Also there are portions of public land that anybody could hunt before the CWMU program that are now not available to the average public unless they draw a CWMU tag or buy a tag from the landowner. I agree with you that residents should get a benefit from living in the state they chose. The landowners should not be allowed to sell public tags. JMO. In Utah the CWMU access is about 75% for paid hunter and 25% for public.
Have you ever lived in Utah? Their system sucks! Selling public wildlife is not the answer. I have hunted in Northern Utah many times and the CWMU program hurt access. Not too long ago I could get access into private land in northern Utah after the expanse of the CWMU program access dried up! Also there are portions of public land that anybody could hunt before the CWMU program that are now not available to the average public unless they draw a CWMU tag or buy a tag from the landowner. I agree with you that residents should get a benefit from living in the state they chose. The landowners should not be allowed to sell public tags. JMO. In Utah the CWMU access is about 75% for paid hunter and 25% for public.
Welcome wyowill and I wish more would jump into the discussion! Just one comment on your first paragraph and that is that I'm in full agreement with your assessment of the land access problem. You mentioned that you have voiced your concern to the WYSFW organization as a member of the organization. What has their response, if any, been? My buddy, who lives in Sheridan, is a member of the organization and feels they do good and I don't doubt that at all. My concern as a nonresident living in Michigan is that I don't want to see landowners be able to sell game tags that belong to the State. It only allows those with a lot of money access to their property and does nothing to allow the average person access. Why should a person be given tags that are, in turn, sold by him to make a huge profit that only benefits himself or possibly an outfitter that is leasing his land? Obviously I feel the same way in that in no way should outfitters be allowed ANY set aside tags for people who use their service. They have already locked up millions of acres to the public and if they can't get enough business the way things stand now, then they shoould find another line of work and not be subsidized by the taxpayers. The same goes with the ridiculous subsiy they are already receiving under the nonresident wilderness law and that's all it is, a friggin subsidy to help their business!!!
So you don't want to see the system we have now? Some landowners are getting paid now and the tags are already coming out of the pool. I put in for a elk unit this year that 47% of the available permits went to landowners, some who have entered into these bull crap partnerships that make their wealthy buddy a partner in their business. Now there partners their are eligible for the le tag.
I want to see tough negotiations that tie transferable permits to access and also a cap on how many le tags can be issued.
Every year these loophole landowner tags become more prevalent its only a matter of time before their so popular that sportsmen in Wyoming get a sliver of permits.
A transferable le tag system that benefits the general public makes sense. It could be negotiated to do just that. No your right I'd Rather just stick my head on the sand and pretend everything is OK.
I want to see tough negotiations that tie transferable permits to access and also a cap on how many le tags can be issued.
Every year these loophole landowner tags become more prevalent its only a matter of time before their so popular that sportsmen in Wyoming get a sliver of permits.
A transferable le tag system that benefits the general public makes sense. It could be negotiated to do just that. No your right I'd Rather just stick my head on the sand and pretend everything is OK.
"A transferable le tag system that benefits the general public makes sense. It could be negotiated to do just that. No your right I'd Rather just stick my head on the sand and pretend everything is OK."
That is your opinion and I don't feel that is the proper solution or would benefit the general public, at least based on what I've seen and heard in other states. Look at what has just happened down in NM with a ridiculous 6% of the tags now allotted to DIY nonresidents. My fear is that when you start going the route NM and some of the other states are going with saleable tags and outfitter sponsored license that it will only get worse for the ordinary guy. We are not saying to stick any heads in the sand. What we are saying is that maybe the current system can be tweeked, rather than any major changes like you are proposing.
That is your opinion and I don't feel that is the proper solution or would benefit the general public, at least based on what I've seen and heard in other states. Look at what has just happened down in NM with a ridiculous 6% of the tags now allotted to DIY nonresidents. My fear is that when you start going the route NM and some of the other states are going with saleable tags and outfitter sponsored license that it will only get worse for the ordinary guy. We are not saying to stick any heads in the sand. What we are saying is that maybe the current system can be tweeked, rather than any major changes like you are proposing.
Utah400Elk
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,267
LAST EDITED ON Jul-19-11 AT 08:06PM (MST)[p]Feduptwo:
I sent you a PM.
The Utah sytem, for bulls and bcks, is approx 75% for the landowner and 25% general public. If Wyoming starts a projram like that the unit you talked about would have less tags available for the residents. How would that help the residents? Wyoming should not follow Utah. They are not in a good place IMO.
I sent you a PM.
The Utah sytem, for bulls and bcks, is approx 75% for the landowner and 25% general public. If Wyoming starts a projram like that the unit you talked about would have less tags available for the residents. How would that help the residents? Wyoming should not follow Utah. They are not in a good place IMO.
We get zero benefit from a land owner tag program that syphoned off 47% of the tags from the unit that i put in for elk. This unit is 80% public land. If we try transferable licensing in some kind of pilot program and it failed miserably we would still be at zero benefit. I'm live in Wyoming and my maths not great but last time I checked 0 from 0 is well 0.
Plus there's a chance that I could buy a tag or trade some labor. What your forgetting is the tags are already being allocated.
Land owners want transferable lo tags pretty bad. I have lots of friends and acquaintances who are large landowners. If we could tie a % of permits to how much private is in a unit and then make landowner draw the tags like Colorado we could see a net decrease in total lo tags. This could be agreed upon as part of the deal for the general public buying off on the transferable. Idea.
I realize there's problems with lo tags but at the end of the day I don't care if the landowner sells a permit at fair market value or gives it to his unapprecative son in law. I guess that's the free market conservative in me.
As far as your slippery slope argument we started the slide a long time ago.
Plus there's a chance that I could buy a tag or trade some labor. What your forgetting is the tags are already being allocated.
Land owners want transferable lo tags pretty bad. I have lots of friends and acquaintances who are large landowners. If we could tie a % of permits to how much private is in a unit and then make landowner draw the tags like Colorado we could see a net decrease in total lo tags. This could be agreed upon as part of the deal for the general public buying off on the transferable. Idea.
I realize there's problems with lo tags but at the end of the day I don't care if the landowner sells a permit at fair market value or gives it to his unapprecative son in law. I guess that's the free market conservative in me.
As far as your slippery slope argument we started the slide a long time ago.
RE: Please print letter, Smokestick..
There is no way 75% of limited entry permits in utah go to landowners. That's Obama math. I think you mean 75% of the cwmu tags which would be about right. Remember cwmu exist on large tracks of private, most of which never was hunted by the general public before the creation of the program. I also know they give tons of antlerless harvest to the general public on cwmu. The general meat hunter probably appreciates this as he most likely wasn't hunting these ranches before.
Utah's Problems stem from the fact that from the 80's to present the population of the state has tripled. There is a huge demand on a fragile resourse. I'll read your. Pm
There is no way 75% of limited entry permits in utah go to landowners. That's Obama math. I think you mean 75% of the cwmu tags which would be about right. Remember cwmu exist on large tracks of private, most of which never was hunted by the general public before the creation of the program. I also know they give tons of antlerless harvest to the general public on cwmu. The general meat hunter probably appreciates this as he most likely wasn't hunting these ranches before.
Utah's Problems stem from the fact that from the 80's to present the population of the state has tripled. There is a huge demand on a fragile resourse. I'll read your. Pm
Utah400Elk
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,267
RE: Please print letter, Smokestick..
I thought we were talking about the CWMU program. No Obama math in that statement. In the CWMU program it is about a 75% to 25% split.
I thought we were talking about the CWMU program. No Obama math in that statement. In the CWMU program it is about a 75% to 25% split.
What a big surprise when I read your statement that landowners want transferable tags pretty bad! I would too if I could make the profit these people are making selling tags given to them to the well-off few that can afford them and not even blink! I feel that your use of the term "fair market value" is basically meaningless when 99% of the public can't afford them, so it really isn't fair to the vast majority. Look at the number of tags that are being offered for sale on the net right now because of the ridiculous prices the tags have been raised too. It appears that even persons that can afford them are saying enough is enough! Any time you start selling tags like you are wanting to do there are generally only two people who benefit. The guy that can afford to go anywhere because he has the money and the person who sells the tag. I would hazard a guess that even if there was a proposal to allow a 50/50 split between persons buying those licenses and allowing that same number of people on the property for free that the landowners/outfitters would be against it or if it went through that the nonpaying public would not be treated the same as the paying client. I seem to hear a lot of MMers comlaining about that in the Utah CWMU system. I have no idea whether it's true or not and all I can go by is what I read regarding what has happened to some on those properties.
Your completely missing my point so I'll try one more time. Wyoming already has landowner tags. If they didn't I would be adamantly opposed to creating them. Since they already exist I would like to see someone negotiate some value for Wyoming sportsmen. I promise if negotiated at the right exchange rate we could get landowners to leave a % of what they already get in the draw, that is if they could sell their remaining permits. Since we currently receive 0 value from the program a 1% increase would be a improvement.
Wyoming landowner tags are already for sell. Be it not on the free market but through loop holes in the current system. Every year more of this goes on. Not to mention the subdivision of purchased property to fetch more lo tags.
I have lots of friends throughout the west that purchase land owner tags. Most of these guys Are not in the 99% that you keep referring to. These guys just make sacrifices to do what they love. I've never bought a lo tag but I've shopped a few times and I fully expect that some day I will buy them . Landowner tags always sell for market value because they sell for what the market bears (or the buyer is willng to pay). Lots of times the price gets over inflated but if quality opportunity doesn't exist the price comes back down. It seems you've decided what every tag in the west is worth and its more than your willing to pay, so you just throw the " you must be rich if you buy a permit card" which is BS especially coming from a guy who spends thousand's of dollar's hunting the west every year.
Wyoming landowner tags are already for sell. Be it not on the free market but through loop holes in the current system. Every year more of this goes on. Not to mention the subdivision of purchased property to fetch more lo tags.
I have lots of friends throughout the west that purchase land owner tags. Most of these guys Are not in the 99% that you keep referring to. These guys just make sacrifices to do what they love. I've never bought a lo tag but I've shopped a few times and I fully expect that some day I will buy them . Landowner tags always sell for market value because they sell for what the market bears (or the buyer is willng to pay). Lots of times the price gets over inflated but if quality opportunity doesn't exist the price comes back down. It seems you've decided what every tag in the west is worth and its more than your willing to pay, so you just throw the " you must be rich if you buy a permit card" which is BS especially coming from a guy who spends thousand's of dollar's hunting the west every year.
This "guy who spends thousands of dollars hunting the west every year" has never spent over $1000 in any one season hunting until the 7 week trip I took last year. That's because I'm retired on a fixed income and to do what I do I cut grass in the summer and blow snow in the winter to save up the money to hunt in Wyoming. I, as well as many others, will just have to agree to disagree with you on this discussion because of what we have stated previously. One last thing though and that is that you mentioned the Wyoming LO tags are already being sold. If that's the case, then whoever knows where that is happening should have enough balls to turn the violators in, rather than to suggest that because it's already happening we should make it legal. That seems to be the cry nowadays by some to legalize pot, etc. and it just doesn't fly. Sorry, but nobody will ever convince me that landowners or outfitters should profit from tags that represent the taxpayers of the state. IMO it's a subsidy that should not happen and will not benefit anywhere near the number of people you are stating it will. The people of Montana wised up and just eliminated the outfitter sponsored tags there and I hope the folks of Wyoming don't let anything like you are purposing pass any time in the near future. Have a good day!
Landowners are not breaking any rules entering partnership where one partner takes advantage of the landowner tags. Wealthy people Are not doing anything wrong when they purchase a large tract of private land, subdivide it, and multiply that amount of tags that the property is actually entitled. There is no crime being committed.
I fully expect that nothing will be done on this issue as there's to many people who can't stand the fact someone is getting something that they are not. Once again I'm not supporting a non existent landowner tag program I'm just supporting making changes to the existing program to benefit the general public.
I fully expect that nothing will be done on this issue as there's to many people who can't stand the fact someone is getting something that they are not. Once again I'm not supporting a non existent landowner tag program I'm just supporting making changes to the existing program to benefit the general public.
LAST EDITED ON Jul-20-11 AT 09:25AM (MST)[p]"Wyoming landowner tags are already for sell"
That was in your post that I replied to, so obviously I took it for what the sentence states! I would imagine you may be beating a dead horse because if they are doing what you say (I don't doubt it from what others have also said about the LO tag abuses), it is big money that's involved and they probably have the legislators in their hip pockets! I really have no idea how bad it is and if it will get worse like you are saying to the point where it will affect a huge number of public tags. I'll let someone else chime in on that because I don't care to comment on that which I know little to nothing about.
This sentence in quotes does have me a little puzzled because it would seem that if it was as rampant as you say that many people would be ticked off about it and trying to correct it, rather than not doing anything like you stated.
"I fully expect that nothing will be done on this issue as there's to many people who can't stand the fact someone is getting something that they are not."
That was in your post that I replied to, so obviously I took it for what the sentence states! I would imagine you may be beating a dead horse because if they are doing what you say (I don't doubt it from what others have also said about the LO tag abuses), it is big money that's involved and they probably have the legislators in their hip pockets! I really have no idea how bad it is and if it will get worse like you are saying to the point where it will affect a huge number of public tags. I'll let someone else chime in on that because I don't care to comment on that which I know little to nothing about.
This sentence in quotes does have me a little puzzled because it would seem that if it was as rampant as you say that many people would be ticked off about it and trying to correct it, rather than not doing anything like you stated.
"I fully expect that nothing will be done on this issue as there's to many people who can't stand the fact someone is getting something that they are not."
Hawkeye
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,012
LAST EDITED ON Jul-20-11 AT 09:51AM (MST)[p]As a lifetime Utah resident and hunter, I would advise Wyoming residents to fight tooth and nail against any proposal that models the CWMU program that Utah has adopted. Once you open the door to these high dollar landowner tags it is difficult if not impossible to ever close it. I recognize that a landowner has certain property rights but he does not own the wild game that happens to reside on his property. I have no problem with a landowner charging an access fee or even prohibiting hunting on his property. That is his right. However, I do not agree that a landowner should be given LE permits to sell to the highest bidder. This is nothing more than a government hand out for the landowner, and it allows high dollar folks to circumvent that general drawing process. Unfortunately, this is the model that Utah has chosen and more and more of our game management decisions are being driven by the almighty dollar as opposed to what's best for the animals and the hunting public in general.
Hawkeye
Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
Hawkeye
Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
SMOKESTICK
Active Member
- Messages
- 852
Hawkeye, you are correct that the wildlife belongs to the state; however, the landowner is not selling the wildlife.
The landowner isn't selling the wildlife, he is allowing a portion of the public to hunt his land for free. In return, he can sale, trade or barter his permit vouchers to whomever he/she pleases. The state still determines how many permit vouchers the landowner can obtain. Furthermore, the state collects the money for the permit vouchers and a license is issued. The CWMU licenses and permits are only valid on the private property for which they were issued. In other words, you can not hunt on adjacent public lands.
Landowners already have the ability to sale, trade or barter for access to their property. Some landowners in Wyoming are doing this with public lands enclosed because they do not need to allow public access across their private lands.
The only complaint I have heard from people in regards to the CWMU program was that some property use to be available to some individuals for little to nothing. Those landowners have now chosen to enroll their lands in the program so those individuals must either enter the state drawing to obtain a tag, just as all other hunters do or purchase trade or barter for some of the permit vouchers. How has that changed anything? For once, the general public has access to this ranch through a general drawing performed by the state.
The landowner isn't selling the wildlife, he is allowing a portion of the public to hunt his land for free. In return, he can sale, trade or barter his permit vouchers to whomever he/she pleases. The state still determines how many permit vouchers the landowner can obtain. Furthermore, the state collects the money for the permit vouchers and a license is issued. The CWMU licenses and permits are only valid on the private property for which they were issued. In other words, you can not hunt on adjacent public lands.
Landowners already have the ability to sale, trade or barter for access to their property. Some landowners in Wyoming are doing this with public lands enclosed because they do not need to allow public access across their private lands.
The only complaint I have heard from people in regards to the CWMU program was that some property use to be available to some individuals for little to nothing. Those landowners have now chosen to enroll their lands in the program so those individuals must either enter the state drawing to obtain a tag, just as all other hunters do or purchase trade or barter for some of the permit vouchers. How has that changed anything? For once, the general public has access to this ranch through a general drawing performed by the state.
dwalton
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,526
Dated March 18, 2011
NRA, SCI and CSF Disavow Misleading Press Release
Today the National Rifle Association, Safari Club International and the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation publicly disavowed a misleading press release distributed on Friday, March 11th to congressional offices and other outlets. The press release blatantly misrepresents the position of these organizations regarding legislation to delist gray wolves under the Endangered Species Act.
The draft release was circulated by an individual representing Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife and Big Game Forever. The individual representing these two groups was immediately advised to remove the aforementioned organizations named in the release. Unfortunately, he did not, and the release was transmitted without correcting the inaccurate information.
The release in question claimed that the NRA, SCI and CSF along with the other organizations listed below are opposed to language relating to the delisting of gray wolves in spending legislation currently pending before the U.S. Congress. In fact, these organizations support that language, as well as every other measure that has been introduced in the U.S. House and Senate to date addressing this important issue.
Congressional offices and members of the media should exercise caution in accepting as fact, or repeating, any claims made by Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, Big Game Forever or any person claiming to represent them. Due to the blatant misrepresentation contained in the press release circulated by these two groups, any claims they make in the future should be thoroughly investigated and independently confirmed.
Please tell me why we should believe the claims in your letter, Smoke?
NRA, SCI and CSF Disavow Misleading Press Release
Today the National Rifle Association, Safari Club International and the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation publicly disavowed a misleading press release distributed on Friday, March 11th to congressional offices and other outlets. The press release blatantly misrepresents the position of these organizations regarding legislation to delist gray wolves under the Endangered Species Act.
The draft release was circulated by an individual representing Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife and Big Game Forever. The individual representing these two groups was immediately advised to remove the aforementioned organizations named in the release. Unfortunately, he did not, and the release was transmitted without correcting the inaccurate information.
The release in question claimed that the NRA, SCI and CSF along with the other organizations listed below are opposed to language relating to the delisting of gray wolves in spending legislation currently pending before the U.S. Congress. In fact, these organizations support that language, as well as every other measure that has been introduced in the U.S. House and Senate to date addressing this important issue.
Congressional offices and members of the media should exercise caution in accepting as fact, or repeating, any claims made by Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, Big Game Forever or any person claiming to represent them. Due to the blatant misrepresentation contained in the press release circulated by these two groups, any claims they make in the future should be thoroughly investigated and independently confirmed.
Please tell me why we should believe the claims in your letter, Smoke?
Hawkeye
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,012
LAST EDITED ON Jul-20-11 AT 03:39PM (MST)[p]Bob-
Based upon my research and experience, I would say that the vast majority of Utah hunters are not happy with the CWMU program. Obviously, if you have the financial means to purchase a CWMU tag every year, this is a great deal. Who wouldn't want to hunt elk every year on Deseret or Spring Creek or chase mule deer on Alton or the Ensign Ranch? Thus, the landowners and the big money guys love the program.
Let's take a minute and consider the average Joe. The vast majority of the quality tags (I am talking about trophy elk and deer not anterless tags) are given to the landowner to be sold to the highest bidder. If an average Joe gambles and risks his hard-earned bonus points on drawing one of the few CWMU tags available in the public draw then he faces a number of challenges, including the following: (1) Most CWMU's don't allow public hunters to scout the unit prior to the hunt; (2) Most CWMU's limit the number of family/friends that can accompany the hunter; (3) Many CWMU's improperly attempt to limit where the public hunters hunt on the CWMU; (4) Many CWMU's improperly attempt to limit when the public hunters can hunt, etc. The fact is that many CWMU's purposefully try to steer the public hunters away from the quality animals in favor of their highpaying clients. Why would you want some average joe to kill a 200" buck when one of you high-paying, regular clients could kill the same deer, which would likely result in a handsome tip and a return trip for the following year?
I know that there are exceptions to my observations. For instance, Deseret is reportedly a stand-up operation where public hunters are treated just like paying clients, and are even provided a guide. However, you need look no further than the monstermuleys.com archives to see numerous posts from disgruntled public hunters who burned their bonus points on a CWMU tag only to end up with a raw deal.
As I stated previously, if I were king I would not give any permits to landowners. Instead, I would encourage them to offer hunting access to those individuals that draw a tag through the public draw. If a landowner grants someone access for free, good for them. Hopefully, the lucky hunter will express his gratitude and treat the land with respect. If a landowner decides to charge a reasonable access fee to such individuals, that is fine too. However, the price the landowner could charge would be limited by what the average hunter is willing/able to pay. The economics would not be artificially inflated by guides, outfitters and big money.
Based upon past experience on this forum, I am almost certain that someone will accuse me of being jealous of the landowners and their wealthy clients. However, this simply is not true. I work hard and sacrifice to have the opportunities that I enjoy. Although I have never actually purchased a CWMU, landowner or conservation permit, I probably could do so without breaking the bank. However, I am in many ways an average Joe and I hate to see the decline of our hunting heritage in favor of big business.
I respect the fact that many may disagree with my opinion on this issue but I truly believe that Utah has chosen the way of big money and politics and unfortunately many of us will live to see the day when we regret those choices.
Hawkeye
Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
Based upon my research and experience, I would say that the vast majority of Utah hunters are not happy with the CWMU program. Obviously, if you have the financial means to purchase a CWMU tag every year, this is a great deal. Who wouldn't want to hunt elk every year on Deseret or Spring Creek or chase mule deer on Alton or the Ensign Ranch? Thus, the landowners and the big money guys love the program.
Let's take a minute and consider the average Joe. The vast majority of the quality tags (I am talking about trophy elk and deer not anterless tags) are given to the landowner to be sold to the highest bidder. If an average Joe gambles and risks his hard-earned bonus points on drawing one of the few CWMU tags available in the public draw then he faces a number of challenges, including the following: (1) Most CWMU's don't allow public hunters to scout the unit prior to the hunt; (2) Most CWMU's limit the number of family/friends that can accompany the hunter; (3) Many CWMU's improperly attempt to limit where the public hunters hunt on the CWMU; (4) Many CWMU's improperly attempt to limit when the public hunters can hunt, etc. The fact is that many CWMU's purposefully try to steer the public hunters away from the quality animals in favor of their highpaying clients. Why would you want some average joe to kill a 200" buck when one of you high-paying, regular clients could kill the same deer, which would likely result in a handsome tip and a return trip for the following year?
I know that there are exceptions to my observations. For instance, Deseret is reportedly a stand-up operation where public hunters are treated just like paying clients, and are even provided a guide. However, you need look no further than the monstermuleys.com archives to see numerous posts from disgruntled public hunters who burned their bonus points on a CWMU tag only to end up with a raw deal.
As I stated previously, if I were king I would not give any permits to landowners. Instead, I would encourage them to offer hunting access to those individuals that draw a tag through the public draw. If a landowner grants someone access for free, good for them. Hopefully, the lucky hunter will express his gratitude and treat the land with respect. If a landowner decides to charge a reasonable access fee to such individuals, that is fine too. However, the price the landowner could charge would be limited by what the average hunter is willing/able to pay. The economics would not be artificially inflated by guides, outfitters and big money.
Based upon past experience on this forum, I am almost certain that someone will accuse me of being jealous of the landowners and their wealthy clients. However, this simply is not true. I work hard and sacrifice to have the opportunities that I enjoy. Although I have never actually purchased a CWMU, landowner or conservation permit, I probably could do so without breaking the bank. However, I am in many ways an average Joe and I hate to see the decline of our hunting heritage in favor of big business.
I respect the fact that many may disagree with my opinion on this issue but I truly believe that Utah has chosen the way of big money and politics and unfortunately many of us will live to see the day when we regret those choices.
Hawkeye
Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
PleaseDear
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 10,450
With --what--over 10 years being on M&M......
It still is confusing to me to see these type threads that are simply 'It is better for ME so let's screw THEM' type logic.
The have nots trying to penalize the ones that do have--- type deal.
Robb
It still is confusing to me to see these type threads that are simply 'It is better for ME so let's screw THEM' type logic.
The have nots trying to penalize the ones that do have--- type deal.
Robb
Wyoming Hunting Guides & Outfitters
Urge 2 Hunt
We focus on trophy elk, mule deer, antelope and moose hunts and take B&C bucks most years.
